NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

While the OFFICE of President remains in highest regard at NewEnergyNews, this administration's position on the climate crisis makes it impossible to regard THIS president with respect. Below is the NewEnergyNews theme song until 2020.

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

TODAY’S STUDY: HOW TO COMPARE VALUE OF SOLAR STUDIES

The addition of distributed energy resources (DERs) onto the grid creates new opportunities and challenges because of their unique siting, operational, and ownership characteristics compared to conventional centralized resources.

Today, the increasingly rapid adoption of distributed solar photovoltaics (DPV) in particular is driving a heated debate about whether DPV creates beneﬁts or imposes costs to stakeholders within the electricity system. But the wide variation in analysis approaches and quantitative tools used by different parties in different jurisdictions is inconsistent, confusing, and frequently lacks transparency.

Without increased understanding of the beneﬁts and costs of DERs, there is little ability to make effective tradeoffs between investments.

The objective of this eLab discussion document is to assess what is known and unknown about the categorization, methodological best practices, and gaps around the beneﬁts and costs of DPV, and to begin to establish a clear foundation from which additional work on beneﬁt/cost assessments and pricing structure design can be built.

This discussion document reviews 15 DPV beneﬁt/cost studies by utilities, national labs, and other organizations. Completed between 2005 and 2013, these studies reﬂect a signiﬁcant range of estimated DPV value.

No study comprehensively evaluated the beneﬁts and costs of DPV, although many acknowledge additional sources of beneﬁt or cost and many agree on the broad categories of beneﬁt and cost. There is broad recognition that some beneﬁts and costs may be difﬁcult or impossible to quantify, and some accrue to different stakeholders.

Because of these differences, comparing results across studies can be informative, but should be done with the understanding that results must be normalized for context, assumptions, or methodology.

While detailed methodological differences abound, there is general agreement on overall approach to estimating energy value and some philosophical agreement on capacity value, although there remain key differences in capacity methodology. There is signiﬁcantly less agreement on overall approach to estimating grid support services and currently unmonetized values including ﬁnancial and security risk, environment, and social value.

Methods for identifying, assessing and quantifying the beneﬁts and costs of distributed resources are advancing rapidly, but important gaps remain to be ﬁlled before this type of analysis can provide an adequate foundation for policymakers and regulators engaged in determining levels of incentives, fees, and pricing structures for DPV and other DERs.

In any beneﬁt/cost study, it is critical to be transparent about assumptions, perspectives, sources and methodologies so that studies can be more readily compared, best practices developed, and drivers of results understood.

While it may not be feasible to quantify or assess sources of beneﬁt and cost comprehensively, beneﬁt/cost studies must explicitly decide if and how to account for each source of value and state which are included and which are not.

While individual jurisdictions must adapt approaches based on their local context, standardization of categories, deﬁnitions, and methodologies should be possible to some degree and will help ensure accountability and veriﬁability of beneﬁt and cost estimates that provide a foundation for policymaking.

Distribution value: The beneﬁts or costs that DPV creates in the distribution system are inherently local, so accurately estimating value requires much more analytical granularity and therefore greater difﬁculty.

Grid support services value: There continues to be uncertainty around whether and how DPV can provide or require additional grid support services, but this could potentially become an increasingly important value.

Financial, security, environmental, and social values: These values are largely (though not comprehensively) unmonetized as part of the electricity system and some are very difﬁcult to quantify.

Thus far, studies have made simplifying assumptions that implicitly assume historically low penetrations of DPV. As the penetration of DPV on the electric system increases, more sophisticated, granular analytical approaches will be needed and the total value is likely to change.

Studies have largely focused on DPV by itself. But a conﬂuence of factors is likely to drive increased adoption of the full spectrum of renewable and distributed resources, requiring a consideration of DPV’s beneﬁts and costs in the context of a changing system.

With better recognition of the costs and beneﬁts that all DERs can create, including PDV, pricing structures and business models can be better aligned, enabling greater economic deployment of DERs and lower overall system costs for ratepayers.

QUICK NEWS, July 31: WORLD RENEWABLES TO RISE; SUN TO HIT $134BIL BY 2020; VIRGINIA LOOKS OFFSHORE FOR WIND

“Over the next three decades, world energy consumption is projected to increase by 56 percent… largely in the developing world, where growth is driven by strong, long-term economic growth. Half of the total world increase in energy consumption is attributed to China and India…Although petroleum and other liquids remain the largest source of energy, the liquid fuels share of world marketed energy consumption falls from 34 percent in 2010 to 28 percent in 2040. Renewable energy and nuclear power are the world's fastest-growing energy sources, each increasing by 2.5 percent per year…Natural gas is the fastest growing fossil fuel…[growing] by 1.7 percent per year…”click here for more

"…Following years of solar PV module oversupply and unsustainable, often artificially low pricing, 2013 is expected to be the year that the global solar PV market begins to stabilize. Market activity is shifting from Europe to Asia Pacific and, potentially, the United States…There is also considerable opportunity in…Chile, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia…By the end of the decade, solar PV is expected to be cost competitive with retail electricity prices without subsidies in a significant portion of the world. Navigant Research forecasts that annual revenue from solar PV installations will surpass $134 billion by 2020…”click here for more

“Nearly 112,800 acres off the coast of Virginia are set to be auctioned in September for wind energy development — the second such competitive lease sale in the country, the federal government announced…The move was praised by federal and state officials and environmental groups for its potential to create jobs, strengthen the country's energy security and competitiveness and develop large-scale clean energy projects…Eight companies are prequalified to bid, including Dominion Virginia Power, which is both the largest power company in the state and the largest participant in the auction…”click here for more

In January 2007, California began a $3.3 billion ratepayer-funded effort to install 3,000
megawatts (MW) of new solar over the next decade and transform the market for solar
energy by reducing the cost of solar generating equipment. The California Public Utilities
Commission’s (CPUC) portion of the solar effort is known as the California Solar initiative (CSI) Program. The CSI program goal is to install 1,940 MW of solar capacity by the end of 2016, and, along with other statewide solar programs, transition the solar industry to a point where it can be self-sustaining without subsidies.

This Annual Program Assessment meets statutory requirement for an annual report to the
Legislature on the progress of the CSI Program. Other state authorized programs, including the New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP) and publicly-owned utilities’ solar offerings, are not included in this report.

The market for solar generating equipment in California has grown at a rapid pace since the beginning of the CSI Program. The annual rate of new solar installations and the cumulative installed capacity both provide evidence that California is well along the path of achieving the installed capacity goals set forth by Senate Bill (SB) 1 in 2006, the legislation that authorized the CSI Program.

This report contains current information on distributed solar energy systems in California,
including systems installed through the CSI Program and those installed through other
incentive programs. In addition, this report provides detailed information on CSI Program
participation, installed capacity, equipment costs, and program impacts. The report also
includes information on the progress of other CSI Program components, including the
Single-Family Affordable Solar Homes Program (SASH); the Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing Program (MASH); the CSI-Thermal Program; the CSI-Thermal Low Income Program; and the Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Program.

This report also includes information on Net Energy Metering (NEM) and other relevant policy updates.

• Through the end of the first quarter of 2013, California has an estimated 1,629 MW of
installed solar capacity on the customer side of the meter at 167,878 customer sites in the
investor-owned utility (IOU) territories.

• A record 391 megawatts (MW) were installed statewide in 2012, a growth of 26 percent from 2011.

o Since the program was launched in December of 2008, SASH has received a total of 3,386 applications which have resulted in 8.5 MW of installed capacity on eligible homes, with another 1.8 MW currently in progress.

o SASH applicants have received a total of $64 million in support for their residential solar systems.

o The CSI RD&D Program has conducted three project solicitations since its inception, resulting in grant funding for 23 projects totaling $28 million. The funded projects focused on the following areas:

o A fourth solicitation of $7 million is currently anticipated for the second quarter of 2013. The focus of the fourth solicitation will be cost-effective, safe, and reliable strategies for integrating PV into distribution systems.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says TransCanada Corp. (TRP) should be required to buy renewable power to run pumps along the route of its proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a measure the company said is unworkable and unnecessary…The EPA, in an April filing with the State Department, also said the U.S. should work with Canada to promote technology to capture and store underground the carbon-dioxide emissions generated in the production of Canadian oil….The State Department is reviewing the $5.3 billion project because it crosses an international border. TransCanada first applied for a permit for the project in 2008…”click here for more

“…In filing its 2014 Renewable Energy Standard (RES) compliance plan with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Xcel Energy says it intends to add 42.5 MW of new generation in 2014, including 24 MW of on-site (“small”) solar and 6.5 MW of community solar through the company’s Solar*Rewards program…The RES compliance plan also asks the CPUC to identify clearly the incentives provided to solar customers associated with [Net Energy Metering (NEM)]. The utility says NEM incentives ultimately are paid by non-solar customers across Xcel Energy’s service territory in Colorado…[and] the utility is requesting that the solar customers’ net costs - the benefits they receive less the costs Xcel Energy avoids as a result of their solar systems - be clearly spelled out…”click here for more

“New Jersey utility regulators dealt a setback…to [the proposed Fishermen's Energy Atlantic City wind farm] off the beaches of Atlantic City, saying they were not satisfied that the project's economic benefits would outweigh the added cost of wind energy…The Board of Public Utilities voted unanimously to accept a staff finding that the [25 megawatt] project's costs would not be offset by environmental benefits along with added jobs and investment in the region…”click here for more

Monday, July 29, 2013

TODAY’S STUDY: THE HUGE OPPORTUNITY IN OFFSHORE WIND O&M

July 2013 (GL Garrard Hassan for Scottish Enterprise and The Crown Estate)

Executive Summary

The focus of the fledgling UK offshore wind industry has so far been the development and construction of wind farms in the unforgiving marine environment. But, as more and more offshore assets are commissioned and the number of operational wind turbines continues to grow, the technical and commercial challenges of operating projects is starting to receive much greater attention.

Offshore wind operations and maintenance (O&M) is a rapidly developing sector in its own right. Standardised technical and commercial practices have not yet emerged. Accepting that there are many paths offshore wind O&M can take, this ‘Guide to UK Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance’ sets out the fundamental drivers that will shape the industry – and sheds light on the scale and nature of the opportunities it presents.

As more and larger offshore wind projects are built, further from shore, accessing the turbines to carry out maintenance will require new logistical solutions.

As well as the relatively well understood workboat-based approach, increasing transit distances mean that strategies which include helicopter support and, eventually,
offshore-based working will be needed.

The Opportunity

O&M activity accounts for approximately one quarter of the life-time cost of an offshore wind farm. Over the next two decades, offshore wind O&M is going to become
a significant industrial sector in its own right.

Based on the UK Government’s projections for the deployment of offshore wind, the O&M of more than 5,500 offshore turbines could be worth almost £2bn per annum
by 2025 – an industry similar in size to the UK passenger aircraft service business today.

The main customers for O&M services are the owners of the wind project, the supplier of the wind turbines and the owner of the electricity transmission connection. The precise
contracting arrangements depend on several factors, not least the project owners’ appetite for taking a “hands-on” role and the capabilities available in the third-party market. Many areas of offshore O&M will present opportunities for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) – particularly those where location, flexibility and new ideas are important.

All To Play For

As this industry looks at the challenges ahead and strives for commercial maturity, it is those companies who actively engage now that will help to shape its future.

Introduction

Offshore wind O&M is the activity that follows commissioning to ensure the safe and economic running of the project. The objective of this activity is to make sure the project achieves the best balance between running cost and electricity output. O&M occurs throughout the life of the project, which is nominally 20 years. In this industry, O&M is broadly similar to inspection, repairs and maintenance (IRM) activity in the offshore oil and gas sector.

As implied in the name, O&M comprises two distinct streams of activity.

• Operations refers to activities contributing to the high level management of the asset such as remote monitoring, environmental monitoring, electricity sales, marketing, administration and other back office tasks. Operations represent a very small proportion of O&M expenditure, the vast majority of which is accounted for directly by the wind farm owner or the supplier of the wind turbines.

• Maintenance accounts for by far the largest portion of O&M effort, cost and risk. Maintenance activity is the up-keep and repair of the physical plant and systems. It can be divided into preventative maintenance and corrective maintenance.

• Preventative maintenance includes proactive repair to, or replacement of, known wear components based on routine inspections or information from
condition monitoring systems. It also includes routine
surveys and inspections.

• Corrective maintenance includes the reactive repair or replacement of failed or damaged components. It may also be performed batch-wise when serial defects or other problems that affect a large number of wind turbines need to be corrected. For planning
purposes, the distinction is usually made between scheduled or proactive maintenance and unscheduled or reactive maintenance.

After the paramount safety of personnel, the second most important consideration when operating and maintaining an offshore wind project is the financial return. The objective of maximising the output of valuable electricity for sale – at least cost – can be thought of as driving all decisions by project owners about planning and carrying out O&M.

Offshore wind O&M involves a diverse range of activities. However, there are a few fundamental concepts that underpin the way that the key players are likely to approach O&M. Some of the most important factors in shaping O&M are:

• Availability – as a measure of the performance of the asset

• scheduled and unscheduled maintenance – the nuts and bolts of keeping a project running smoothly

• Access – overcoming the constraints placed on operations by the weather and sea conditions

The economics of offshore wind O&M require a balance to be struck between the money spent on maintaining the project and the revenue lost when the electricity output is limited by technical problems.

An important measure of the performance of a project is known as availability. Availability is the proportion of the time that a turbine, or the wind farm as a whole, is technically capable of producing electricity. Availability is therefore a measure of how little electricity is lost due to equipment downtime. The balance between O&M cost
and the lost revenue incurred by non-availability will be different for every project, but current offshore wind farms typically achieve availability of between 90% and 95%.

Onshore wind farms, which face much lower O&M costs, typically achieve higher availability in the order of 97%. Figure 2.1 shows indicative trends for the cost of O&M as a function of turbine availability. Although the cost of lost revenue declines towards zero as the turbines approach 100% availability, the cost of achieving it approaches exponential growth if 100% availability is required. If a wind farm owner invests too little in O&M, they will incur a penalty in the form of poor performance of the turbines
and other components. Conversely, if an owner overinvests in O&M, with no regard to cost, they face diminishing returns as each increment in availability costs more than the last. The chart shows this theoretical optimum at the lowest point of the total cost curve,
which of course will be slightly different for each project.

Availability is a technical metric and not directly related to the wind resource. For this reason it is important that it is not confused with capacity factor which, while also expressed as a percentage, is strongly a measure of the output of the project and, as such, is influenced by the average wind speed at the site.

One of the major hurdles to maintaining offshore wind projects is getting technicians on and off the turbines and offshore substations to carry out work. There are two major factors that influence the approach taken to gaining access:

• Transit time – the time needed to shuttle a service crew from the O&M base to the place of work. With limited shift hours available, the time taken to transport crews to and from a maintenance job cuts into the amount of time actually working to maintain the turbines and other plant. The further the project site is from the O&M base, the less time can be spent by crews on active work, given the longer transit time and risk of fatigue.

• Accessibility – the proportion of the time a turbine can be safely accessed from a particular vessel and is dependent on the sea conditions. For example if, at a particular project, the significant wave height1is greater than 2m for 40% of the time, a vessel that
can transfer crew and equipment only in wave heights of 2m or less might be said to have 60% accessibility.

Both of these factors depend, to some extent, on the average sea conditions in a particular location – accessibility more so than transit time. Accessibility is especially critical for unscheduled maintenance since the project operator will often have no opportunity to plan any production outages for times of calmer sea conditions. When planning the approach to O&M for any given project, the owner will seek to reduce the total cost (direct cost and lost production) by seeking ways to reduce transit time and increase accessibility to the turbines.

Much of the maintenance activity is currently carried out on an ad-hoc, responsive basis when a wind turbine or other system fails. This is referred to as unscheduled maintenance. Such faults will require a range of different responses from a simple inspection and restart of a wind turbine, which might take a couple of hours, through to the replacement of an offshore substation transformer, which could take weeks or
months to implement.

Other activities can be planned and executed in advance – scheduled maintenance. Typically, offshore wind turbines and associated plant have a defined scheduled
maintenance regime which involves a major annual service supplemented by periodic inspection regimes. The annual services are usually conducted in the summer months to minimise weather downtime and lost production since average wind speeds tend to be lower in summer than in winter and may be carried out by a temporary, supplementary team of specialist staff and providers.

Reducing the cost of the energy produced by offshore wind projects is a major focus for the offshore wind industry and for the UK Government. As a significant contributor to the overall cost of energy, finding ways to reduce the cost of O&M services and optimising asset performance have important roles to play.

As described under “availability” above, the incentives on the owner of the project to maximise the electricity production at least cost are very compelling and can be expected to drive improvements in all technical elements of O&M as the market gathers momentum. Particular technical developments expected to come forward include
future wind turbine models with increased focus on:

• Improved remote monitoring and control to better understand the offshore plant and make previously unscheduled activities more predictable, reducing the logistical burden of putting technicians on turbines.

• Other, more fundamental, improvements such as the development of more reliable, gearless (direct drive) turbines.

Non-technical areas for cost reduction, although uncertain, may include greater synergies, sharing of resources such as jack-up vessels or other logistics plant between neighbouring projects and greater competition within the O&M supply chain for a range of contract packages.‘Perfect’ O&M maximises availability, at least cost, by ensuring the best possible access to offshore plant, minimising unscheduled maintenance and carrying out scheduled maintenance as efficiently as possible – ultimately resulting in the lowest possible cost of energy…

“…[George Shultz, Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan and key negotiator for the Montreal Protocol, one of the most effective global climate treaties ever:] “…In the energy area, we have to be constantly aware of three big objectives. Number one: we have to think of energy as a strategic commodity that is very important to our national security. Number two: we have to recognize that energy is the engine of the economy, so we want inexpensive, reliable, consistent energy. And number three: we have to recognize that energy produces pollutants as it burns, so it affects our environment. It affects the air we breathe; it affects the climate we create. So we have these three issues to keep in mind all the time, and you can't just do one or the other, but you've got to work on them all…”click here for more

“China and the European Union defused their biggest trade dispute by far on Saturday with a deal to regulate Chinese solar panel imports and avoid a wider war in goods from wine to steel…After six weeks of talks, the EU's trade chief and his Chinese counterpart sealed the deal over the telephone, setting a minimum price for panels from China near spot market prices…An EU diplomatic source said that in the solar agreement, the agreed price was 0.56 euro cents per watt, near the spot price for Chinese solar panels in July in Europe…Under the terms of the deal, China will also be allowed to meet [7 of Europe's 2012 16.9 gigawatt] solar panel demand…without being subject to tariffs under the deal…”click here for more

“Plymouth State University'sViewshed Valuation Pilot Studyof residents' attitudes on the value of scenic views affected by wind farms found discontent among Groton residents, where a wind farm went online…[The study] found widespread individual values-based opposition in the Plymouth area to current proposals from two European wind power companies…[It] also found that residents responded more favorably to wind farm projects if they were involved in the early proposal and planning stages…”click here for more

CLIMATE SKEPTIC COMPROMISING REUTERS REPORTING

“A Media Matters study finds that Reuters' coverage of climate change declined by nearly 50 percent under the regime of the current managing editor, lending credence to a former reporter's claim that a ‘climate of fear’ has gripped the agency…David Fogarty, a former Reuters climate change correspondent, wrote that Managing Editor Paul Ingrassia, then serving as deputy editor-in-chief, identified himself as "a climate change sceptic" in 2012. As time went on, Fogarty alleged, "getting any climate change-themed story published got harder," as some desk editors "agonised" over decisions and allowed articles to become mired in bureaucracy [and Fogarty was dismissed]…”click here for more

MOROCCAN SOLAR PLANT CUTS CSP COST

“...[CPI finds that] a large-scale CSP plant to be built near the city of Ouarzazate in Morocco…[has technology costs for CSP below] the USD 6000/KW mark where they have been stuck since the ‘90s…Indeed, for Ouarzazate I CSP, CPI estimates an overall unit-cost (including financing, contingencies and the expensive storage facility) of approximately USD 5,300/kW — more than 10% lower than initial projections. This means that the plant is among the cheapest ones to have been financed in the last three years…”click here for more

UK WIND GROWTH TO SLOW THROUGH 2030

“…[RenewableUK] expressed concern about the 2030 scenarios outlined in [the Consultation on the draft Electricity Market Reform Delivery Plan]…[Most scenarios] see only a very limited role for development of wind during the 2020s. Based on predicted capacity by 2020 - in all but the high offshore wind scenario - the Government envisages very little additional capacity of both onshore and offshore wind. In some scenarios Government is predicting less wind energy than its existing high end estimate in 2020…”click here for more

ITALIAN UTILITY TO TAKE GEOTHERMAL GLOBAL

“…[Geothermal in the hill region south of Florence] better known for Chianti wine than high-technology produces enough power for a million people. That’s helped make Italy Europe’s biggest generator from underground heat, the world’s cheapest source of electricity…Enel Green Power SpA (EGPW), which operates the plant, says its experience will give the unit of Italy’s largest utility an edge as it spends 900 million euros ($1.2 billion) in four years to take its technology from Turkey to Peru. Researcher Frost & Sullivan Inc. expects the global market to grow fivefold to $5.89 billion in the seven years through 2017 as governments cut green subsidies and seek alternatives to wind and solar…”click here for more

Thursday, July 25, 2013

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST

“A group of Protestant churches has become the first U.S. religious body to vote to divest its pension funds and investments from fossil fuel companies because of climate change concerns…The United Church of Christ, which traces its origins back to the Pilgrims in 1620 and has about 1.1 million members in 5,100 congregations, voted… to divest in stages over the next five years. But it left open the possibility of keeping some investments if the fossil fuel companies meet certain standards…”click here for more

U.S. OFFSHORE WIND COMING ON

"…[I]t's clear the United States needs to look for alternative and cleaner sources of energy. Offshore wind energy is one such source that, although in early developmental stages in the United States, could offer hope for a future of energy independence and a clean energy economy…The first U.S. offshore wind turbine was recently deployed off the coast of Maine. This pilot project uses a floating platform with a small wind turbine attached to a tower, marking a small, but significant step…[Offshore] winds are stronger and steadier than onshore winds. And offshore winds are strongest during the day as well as in heat waves, when the demand for energy is highest. In fact, the East Coast of the United States has been dubbed the "Saudi Arabia" of offshore wind, since there is enough wind energy off this coast to provide the entire country with electricity…”click here for more

COLORS OF THE SUN

“…[S]cientists in Germany have patented low-cost techniques that will allow a solar panel as small as 6 inches square to display multiple colors, including blue, gold, green and red…That could make solar panels much more appealing for buildings but also for electronic billboards capable of generating their own electricity so that they light up at night—or for getting the name of an environmentally conscious company up in lights atop its own solar-clad headquarters…”click here for more

COLO CAPITAL BLDG ADDS GEOTHERMAL HEATING-COOLING

“Colorado will be the first state capitol in the country to power all heating and cooling with geothermal energy…The open-loop geothermal system taps into the Arapahoe Aquifer, which sits more than 850 feet underground and is a consistent 65 degrees. This system, recently brought online, is expected to save the 119 year-old building $100,000 in heating and cooling costs in the first year alone…To install the system, Chevron Energy Solutions drilled an 865-foot well under the state capitol, and ran a pipe into the Arapahoe aquifers below. Unlike a closed-loop system, an open-loop geothermal system is connected directly to a ground water source such as a well or pond and directly pumps the water into a building to the pump unit where it is used for heating and cooling. Open loop systems require access to a substantial water source, but are more cost effective…”click here for more

TODAY’S STUDY: ENERGY, WATER AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The heat waves and drought that hit the United States in 2011 and 2012 shined a harsh light on the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity sector to extreme weather. During the historic 2011 drought in Texas, power plant operators trucked in water from miles away to keep the plants running, and disputes deepened between cities and utilities seeking to construct new water-intensive coal plants. In 2012, heat and drought forced power plants, from the Gallatin coal plant in Tennessee to the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant on the Connecticut River, to reduce their output or shut down altogether. That summer, amid low water levels and soaring water temperatures, operators of other plants—at least seven coal and nuclear plants in the Midwest alone—received permission to discharge even hotter cooling water, to enable the plants to keep generating. These consecutive summers
alone revealed water-related electricity risks across the country.

The power sector has historically placed large demands on both our air and water. In 2011, electricity generation accounted for one-third of U.S. heattrapping emissions, the drivers of climate change.

Power plants also accounted for more than 40 percent of U.S. freshwater withdrawals in 2005, and are one of the largest “consumers” of freshwater—losing water through evaporation during the cooling process—outside the agricultural sector.

The electricity system our nation built over the second half of the twentieth century helped fuel the growth of the U.S. economy and improve the quality of life of many Americans. Yet we built that system before fully appreciating the reality and risks of climate change, and before converging pressures created the strain on local water resources we see today in many places. This system clearly cannot meet our needs in a future of growing demand for electricity, worsening strains on water resources, and an urgent need to mitigate climate change.

We can, however, use fuel and technology options available now to design an electricity future that begins to shed some of these risks. We can also expand our options by making strategic investments in energy and cooling technologies. The key is to understand what a low-carbon, “water-smart” electricity future looks like—which electric sector decisions best prepare us to avoid and minimize energy-water collisions, and to cope with those we cannot avoid—and to make decisions that will set and keep us on that path.

This report is the second from the Energy and Water in a Warming World Initiative (EW3), organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists to focus on the water implications of U.S. electricity choices. The first, Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants, documented the energy-water collisions already occurring because of the dependence of U.S. power plants on water. In that research, we found that past choices on fuel and cooling technologies in the power sector are contributing to water stress in many areas of the country.

Like the first report, this one stems from a collaboration among experts from universities, government, and the nonprofit sector. Water-Smart Power reflects comprehensive new research on the water implications of electricity choices in the United States under a range of pathways, at national, regional, and local levels. The report aims to provide critical information to inform decisions on U.S. power plants and the electricity supply, and motivate choices that safeguard water resources, reduce carbon emissions, and provide reliable power at a reasonable price—even in the context of a changing
climate and pressure on water resources.

• Energy-water collisions are happening now. Because of its outsized water dependence, the U.S. electricity sector is running into and exacerbating growing water constraints in many parts of the country. The reliance of many power plants on lakes, rivers, and groundwater for cooling water can exert heavy pressure on those sources and leave the
plants vulnerable to energy-water collisions, particularly during drought or hot weather. When plants cannot get enough cooling water, for example, they must cut back or completely shut down their generators, as happened repeatedly in 2012 at plants around the country.

• As the contest for water heats up, the power sector is no guaranteed winner. When the water supply has been tight, power plant operators have often secured the water they need. In the summer of 2012, for example, amid soaring temperatures in the Midwest and multiple large fish kills, a handful of power plant operators received permission to discharge exceptionally hot water rather than reduce power output. However, some users are pushing back against the power sector’s dominant stake. In Utah, for example, a proposal to build a 3,000-megawatt nuclear power plant fueled grave concerns about the impact of the plant’s water use. And in Texas, regulators denied developers of a proposed 1,320-megawatt coal plant a permit to withdraw 8.3 billion gallons (25,000 acre-feet) of water annually from the state’s Lower Colorado River.

• Climate change complicates matters. Energywater collisions are poised to worsen in a warming world as the power sector helps drive climate change, which in turn affects water availability and quality. Climate change is already constraining or altering the water supply in many regions by changing the hydrology. In the Southwest, for example,
where the population is growing rapidly and water supply is typically tight, much of the surface water on which many water users depend is declining. Scientists expect rising average temperatures, more extreme heat, and more intense droughts in many regions, along with reductions in water availability.

These conditions—heightened competition for water and more hydrologic variability—are not what our power sector was built to withstand. However, to be resilient, it must adjust to them.

Building an electricity system that can meet the challenges of the twenty-first century is a considerable task. Not only is the needed technology commercially available now, but a transition is also under way that is creating opportunities for real system-wide change:

• The U.S. power sector is undergoing rapid transformation. The biggest shift in capacity and fuel in half a century is under way, as electricity from coal plants shrinks and power from natural gas and renewables grows. Several factors are spurring this transition to a new mix of technologies and fuels. They include the advanced age of many power plants, expanding domestic gas supplies and low natural gas prices, state renewable energy and efficiency policies, new federal air-quality regulations, and the relative costs and risks of coal-fired and nuclear energy.

• This presents an opportunity we cannot afford to miss. Decisions about which power plants to retrofit or retire and which kind to build have both near-term and long-term implications, given the long lifetimes of power plants, their carbon emissions, and their water needs. Even a single average new coal plant could emit 150 million tons of carbon dioxide over 40 years—twice as much as a natural gas plant, and more than 20 million cars emit each year. Power plants that need cooling water will be at risk over their long lifetimes from declining water availability and rising water temperatures stemming from climate change, extreme weather events, and competition from other users. And power plants, in turn, will exacerbate the water risks of other users.

Choices, however, are important only if they lead to different outcomes. To analyze the impact of various options for our electricity future on water withdrawals and consumption, carbon emissions, and power prices, under this new research we focused on several key scenarios. These included “business as usual” and three scenarios based on a strict carbon budget—to address the power sector’s contributions to global warming. Two of those three scenarios assumed the use of specific technologies to make those significant cuts in carbon emissions.

To explore the outcomes of these scenarios we used two models: the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) and the Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) system. With these two models and our set of scenarios, we analyzed the implications of water use in the power sector under different electricity pathways for the entire nation, for various regions, and for individual river basins in the southwestern and southeastern
United States.

Our distinctive approach and new research—along with previous work—shows that our electricity choices will have major consequences over the coming decades, especially in water-stressed regions. Through this research, we have learned that:

• Business as usual in the power sector would fail to reduce carbon emissions, and would not tap opportunities to safeguard water. Because such a pathway for meeting future electricity needs would not cut carbon emissions, it would do nothing to address the impact of climate change on water. Changes in the power plant fleet would mean that water withdrawals by power plants would drop, yet plants’ water consumption would not decline for decades, and then only slowly. The harmful effects of power plants on water temperatures in lakes and rivers might continue unabated, or even worsen. Greater extraction of fossil fuels for power plants would also affect water use and quality.

• Low-carbon pathways can be water-smart. A pathway focused on renewable energy and energy efficiency, we found, could deeply cut both carbon emissions and water effects from the power sector. Water withdrawals would drop 97 percent by 2050—much more than under business as usual. They would also drop faster, with 2030 withdrawals only half those under business as usual. And water consumption would decline 85 percent by 2050.

This pathway could also curb local increases in water temperature from a warming climate. Meanwhile lower carbon emissions would help slow the pace and reduce the severity of climate change, including its long-term effects on water quantity and quality.

• However, low-carbon power is not necessarily water-smart. The menu of technologies qualifying as low-carbon is long, and includes some with substantial water needs. electricity mixes that emphasize carbon capture and storage for coal plants, nuclear
energy, or even water-cooled renewables such as some geothermal, biomass, or concentrating solar could worsen rather than lessen the sector’s effects on water.

• Renewables and energy efficiency can be a winning combination. This scenario would be most effective in reducing carbon emissions, pressure on water resources, and electricity bills. Energy efficiency efforts could more than meet growth in demand for electricity, and renewable energy could supply 80 percent of the remaining demand.

Although other low-carbon paths could rival this one in cutting water withdrawals and consumption, it would edge ahead in reducing groundwater use in the Southwest, improving river flows in the Southeast, and moderating high river temperatures.

This scenario could also provide the lowest costs to consumers, with consumer electricity bills almost one-third lower than under business as usual.toward a Water-smart Energy Future Water-smart energy decision making depends on understanding and effectively navigating the electricity-waterclimate nexus, and applying best practices in decision
making:

• We can make decisions now to reduce water and climate risk. Fuel and technology options already available mean we can design an electricity system with far lower water and climate risks. These include prioritizing low-carbon, water-smart options such as renewable energy and energy efficiency, upgrading power plant cooling systems with those that ease water stress, and matching cooling needs with the most appropriate water sources.

• Electricity decisions should meet water-smart criteria. These criteria can point decision makers to options that reduce carbon emissions and exposure to water-related risks, make sense locally, and are cost-effective.

• Actors in many sectors have essential roles to play. No single platform exists for sound, long-term decisions at the nexus of electricity and water, but those made in isolation will serve neither sector. Instead, actors across sectors and scales need to engage. For example: plant owners can prioritize low-carbon options that are water-appropriate for
the local environment. Legislators can empower energy regulators to take carbon and water into account. Consumer groups can ensure that utilities do not simply pass on to ratepayers the costs of risky, water-intensive plants. Investors in utilities can demand information on water-related risks and seek low-carbon, water-smart options. Researchers
can analyze future climate and water conditions and extremes, allowing planners to consider lowprobability but high-impact events. And scientists and engineers can improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of low-water energy options.

Understanding and addressing the water impact of our electricity choices is urgent business. Because most power sector decisions are long-lived, what we do in the near term commits us to risks or resiliencies for decades. We can untangle the production of electricity from the water supply, and we can build an electricity system that produces no carbon emissions. But we cannot wait, nor do either in isolation, without compromising both. For our climate—and for a secure supply of water and power—we must get this right.

Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that will ReCharge America by Sherry Boschert: "Smart companies plan ahead and try to be the first to adopt new technology that will give them a competitive advantage. That’s what Toyota and Honda did with hybrids, and now they’re sitting pretty. Whichever company is first to bring a good plug-in hybrid to market will not only change their fortune but change the world."

Oil On The Brain; Adventures from the Pump to the Pipeline by Lisa Margonelli: "Spills are one of the costs of oil consumption that don’t appear at the pump. [Oil consultant Dagmar Schmidt Erkin]’s data shows that 120 million gallons of oil were spilled in inland waters between 1985 and 2003. From that she calculates that between 1980 and 2003, pipelines spilled 27 gallons of oil for every billion “ton miles” of oil they transported, while barges and tankers spilled around 15 gallons and trucks spilled 37 gallons. (A ton of oil is 294 gallons. If you ship a ton of oil for one mile you have one ton mile.) Right now the United States ships about 900 billion ton miles of oil and oil products per year."

NOTEWORTHY IN THE MEDIA:
NewEnergyNews would welcome any media-saavy volunteer who would like to re-develop this section of the page. Announcements and reviews of film, television, radio and music related to energy and environmental issues are welcome.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades by Mark S. Friedman

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades, the second volume of Herman K. Trabish’s retelling of oil’s history in fiction, picks up where the first book in the series, OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction, left off. The new book is an engrossing, informative and entertaining tale of the Roaring 20s, World War II and the Cold War. You don’t have to know anything about the first historical fiction’s adventures set between the Civil War, when oil became a major commodity, and World War I, when it became a vital commodity, to enjoy this new chronicle of the U.S. emergence as a world superpower and a world oil power.

As the new book opens, Lefash, a minor character in the first book, witnesses the role Big Oil played in designing the post-Great War world at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Unjustly implicated in a murder perpetrated by Big Oil agents, LeFash takes the name Livingstone and flees to the U.S. to clear himself. Livingstone’s quest leads him through Babe Ruth’s New York City and Al Capone’s Chicago into oil boom Oklahoma. Stymied by oil and circumstance, Livingstone marries, has a son and eventually, surprisingly, resolves his grievances with the murderer and with oil.

In the new novel’s second episode the oil-and-auto-industry dynasty from the first book re-emerges in the charismatic person of Victoria Wade Bridger, “the woman everybody loved.” Victoria meets Saudi dynasty founder Ibn Saud, spies for the State Department in the Vichy embassy in Washington, D.C., and – for profound and moving personal reasons – accepts a mission into the heart of Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe. Underlying all Victoria’s travels is the struggle between the allies and axis for control of the crucial oil resources that drove World War II.

As the Cold War begins, the novel’s third episode recounts the historic 1951 moment when Britain’s MI-6 handed off its operations in Iran to the CIA, marking the end to Britain’s dark manipulations and the beginning of the same work by the CIA. But in Trabish’s telling, the covert overthrow of Mossadeq in favor of the ill-fated Shah becomes a compelling romance and a melodramatic homage to the iconic “Casablanca” of Bogart and Bergman.

Monty Livingstone, veteran of an oil field youth, European WWII combat and a star-crossed post-war Berlin affair with a Russian female soldier, comes to 1951 Iran working for a U.S. oil company. He re-encounters his lost Russian love, now a Soviet agent helping prop up Mossadeq and extend Mother Russia’s Iranian oil ambitions. The reunited lovers are caught in a web of political, religious and Cold War forces until oil and power merge to restore the Shah to his future fate. The romance ends satisfyingly, America and the Soviet Union are the only forces left on the world stage and ambiguity is resolved with the answer so many of Trabish’s characters ultimately turn to: Oil.

Commenting on a recent National Petroleum Council report calling for government subsidies of the fossil fuels industries, a distinguished scholar said, “It appears that the whole report buys these dubious arguments that the consumer of energy is somehow stupid about energy…” Trabish’s great and important accomplishment is that you cannot read his emotionally engaging and informative tall tales and remain that stupid energy consumer. With our world rushing headlong toward Peak Oil and epic climate change, the OIL IN THEIR BLOOD series is a timely service as well as a consummate literary performance.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction by Mark S. Friedman

"...ours is a culture of energy illiterates." (Paul Roberts, THE END OF OIL)

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, a superb new historical fiction by Herman K. Trabish, addresses our energy illiteracy by putting the development of our addiction into a story about real people, giving readers a chance to think about how our addiction happened. Trabish's style is fine, straightforward storytelling and he tells his stories through his characters.

The book is the answer an oil family's matriarch gives to an interviewer who asks her to pass judgment on the industry. Like history itself, it is easier to tell stories about the oil industry than to judge it. She and Trabish let readers come to their own conclusions.

She begins by telling the story of her parents in post-Civil War western Pennsylvania, when oil became big business. This part of the story is like a John Ford western and its characters are classic American melodramatic heroes, heroines and villains.

In Part II, the matriarch tells the tragic story of the second generation and reveals how she came to be part of the tales. We see oil become an international commodity, traded on Wall Street and sought from London to Baku to Mesopotamia to Borneo. A baseball subplot compares the growth of the oil business to the growth of baseball, a fascinating reflection of our current president's personal career.

There is an unforgettable image near the center of the story: International oil entrepreneurs talk on a Baku street. This is Trabish at his best, portraying good men doing bad and bad men doing good, all laying plans for wealth and power in the muddy, oily alley of a tiny ancient town in the middle of everywhere. Because Part I was about triumphant American heroes, the tragedy here is entirely unexpected, despite Trabish's repeated allusions to other stories (Casey At The Bat, Hamlet) that do not end well.

In the final section, World War I looms. Baseball takes a back seat to early auto racing and oil-fueled modernity explodes. Love struggles with lust. A cavalry troop collides with an army truck. Here, Trabish has more than tragedy in mind. His lonely, confused young protagonist moves through the horrible destruction of the Romanian oilfields only to suffer worse and worse horrors, until--unexpectedly--he finds something, something a reviewer cannot reveal. Finally, the question of oil must be settled, so the oil industry comes back into the story in a way that is beyond good and bad, beyond melodrama and tragedy.

Along the way, Trabish gives readers a greater awareness of oil and how we became addicted to it. Awareness, Paul Roberts said in THE END OF OIL, "...may be the first tentative step toward building a more sustainable energy economy. Or it may simply mean that when our energy system does begin to fail, and we begin to lose everything that energy once supplied, we won't be so surprised."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.